My favorite software quality metric is the income statement

I’ve been working on an open-source project for the better part of a year. It is very complex, very fancy, and has no users except for me. But I love it. It sharpens my skills and gives me a chance to discover puzzles and solve them in the most elegant solution possible.

But in the business world, this approach is downright silly. Nobody writes blank checks to vendors. Nothing in nature works like this either.

When a shark chases down and eats an unlucky spring breaker, the shark burns some calories during the swim, and then gets some calories back during the meal.

On average, the shark has to extract at least many calories while eating as it burned during the chase.

So on to the income statement. The shark makes a good metaphor for a software business. The hunt is the process of acquiring customers. The calories are the firm’s revenues and expenses. A lot of the quality of a software team can be measured in the income statement.

The perfect product is written once and it solves all problems and never needs any updates or extensions or bug fixes. The worst product has to be rewritten from scratch for every new customer and requires lots of bug fixes. Really well-written software falls somewhere between. It supports extensions, but they are quick and safe to do. Bugs can be quickly patched.

It wasn’t obvious to me initially, but this aspect is easy to measure in the cost of goods sold. If a firm lands a deal for $60k, but burns 160 hours rushing some tweaks through, then those hours drive up the cost of goods sold and drive down the firm’s margins.

You can look at the firm’s margins over time and watch whether the app is getting better or worse. Sure, there are mitigating factors, but in the long run, you can’t maintain an attractive income statement and a shitty code base.

How to write a resume for an internship

I’ve been on both sides of internships. I’ve puffed up a skinny resume to look more interesting, and I’ve scanned through resumes looking for a candidate. Here’s some tips:

  • Emphasize coursework. Don’t just list your major. Talk about what you’ve done in various courses and what you liked. Describe interesting stuff you studied.
  • Don’t mention your crappy high school jobs. I don’t care if you managed a Taco Bell. In fact, I will hold it against you because Taco Bell is disgusting.
  • Mention any leadership positions in volunteer organizations. Coaching little league, running an Amnesty International chapter, or anything like that all show you know how to interact politely.
  • Help me figure out what the hell to do with you. Do you want to publish an article? Do you want to go on lots of sales calls? Do you want to learn how to program? If you don’t tell me what you want to do, then I have to guess. Or maybe I won’t guess, and I’ll give you a bunch of tedious work instead.

Is this pylint error message valid or bogus?

The vast majority of pythoners use None, but I prefer descriptive strings for default values, like this:
from datetime import datetime, timedelta

def midnight_next_day(initial_time="use today's date"):

if initial_time == "use today's date":
initial_time =

return + timedelta(days=1)

Pylint doesn’t like it though:

$ pylint -e
No config file found, using default configuration
************* Module f
E: 10:midnight_next_day: Instance of 'str' has no 'date' member (but some types could not be inferred)

I changed from using a string as the default to None, and then pylint
didn’t mind:

$ cat
from datetime import datetime
def midnight_next_day(initial_time=None):

if initial_time is None:
initial_time =

return + timedelta(days=1)

$ pylint -e
No config file found, using default configuration

Checking where a variable is None is probably much faster than doing string comparison, but I find the string more informative.

Looking for comments. I already posted this to comp.lang.python here and got some good feedback.

Which code layout do you like more?

I can lay out the same function in two ways. Which one is better?

One return statement and a mutable temporary variable

def f(a, b):
temp = g(a)
if b:
temp = h(temp)
return temp

Two return statements and everything uses single assignment

def f(a, b):
if b:
return h(g(a)
return g(a)

I prefer the second approach. Ever since I learned how prolog requires single assignment, I avoid updating variables. I’m not adamant about it, but in general, I try not to. It’s just a style thing though. I’ve met a lot of programmers (older ones, usually) that like only having one return statement in a function. I don’t know why they like that, but I’ve heard it from numerous people.

Don’t negotiate on your estimates

My dad made a remark once that if you want to be good in sales, you can’t just believe that the glass is half full. You have to say with a straight face that a half-full glass is better than a completely full glass.

Anyhow, my shop has generally good relationships between the technical team and the sales team. There’s one thing that drives me nuts though: when we discuss priority and they try to negotiate with me on my estimates.

It goes a little like this:

me: I saw your note about creating a new permission-level between employee and administrator, where you want to let the shift supervisor do admin work on just their direct reports. In other words, two different shift supervisors will see two different lists of employees even though their permissions are identical. I figure that’s an 8-point project.

Billy Mays: No way! You just need an entity code to track what department that supervisor is attached to and then only show the people in that department.

Me: Yeah.

the shamwow guy: I don’t see how that is a big change. It’s just one extra column in the database. Just add that entity code into your queries.

Me: It is straightforward. I’m not confused about how to do it. It’s going to take a long time. There are lot of places that I need to alter to use this new approach.

Ron Popeil: are we using an object-oriented approach in the code? I hear you say that you’re going to have to change a lot of places in the code. At ${A MUCH BIGGER SOFTWARE COMPANY}, we used single objects so that we didn’t have to change a lot to alter behavior.

The minute when I start justifying my estimate or explaining why I have to change a lot of things, I’ve lost. They go into “close the deal” mode. There is a primal instinct at work here that outclasses higher brain functions. If sales people didn’t have a highly evolved chase instinct, they would suck at sales. When they see me trying to explain why it’s going to take that long, they will just nag nag nag until I give in.

And that’s what we need them for — that’s how sales works.

So I have found that the way out of this situation IS NOT to go technical and start explaining how code works. They’re NEVER going to say gee, now that you gave me a quick tutorial in web application design, and then you explained how you’ll need to rewrite the permissions decorators to use a new state factory, I guess your estimate makes sense.

Instead, this approach works OK for me:

Me: I think it is a great idea and it won’t require a lot of research and development, but it’s going to take a while. So based on that estimate, should we put into the queue or not?

I don’t address the remark about OOD and I don’t explain why. From a salesman’s perspective, you don’t close deals by acknowledging why the prospect doesn’t need what you’re selling. You close deals by overcoming objections. The salesman’s natural instinct is to see an obstacle and wear it down. So the key is not to feed that. Instead, stonewall them. Over time, they’ll respect you more because of it.

Here’s the bottom line: sales people are not like us. And that is OK. We need them. And we can work together as long as we all follow some rules. Don’t take away their bowl while they eat and never justify anything.